Any others who don't believe in social security and Medicare?

Lol, best POD!

You seem to be under the impression that just because something is the law, then it is right. That is, of course, ridiculous. Sorry, merely writing "LAW" in capital letters does not make it any more right. Slavery used to be part of THE LAW too But we got rid of it.

We have a law against drugs because they kill people and ruin lives. Directly. We have a law against speeding because excessively high speeds are dangerous and kill people. Moreover, both laws are designed to apply to ALL citizens equally. The poor person who speeds gets a ticket as much as the rich person who speeds. The law does not say that any one class of people is allowed to speed. Social Security and Medicare on the other hand take from one group of people and give to another.

The analogy remains poor.

Now there is some ridiculous reasoning. I am "endangering people's lives" by not giving them my money? No, genius. By that logic, any money that anyone makes beyond what is necessary to survive should be taken away from them and given to those who don't have or those nasty rich people are "endangering their lives".

Many of those "endangered" people endangered their OWN lives by not saving money when they were young.

Guess again. The government takes from those who have and gives to those who have not. Robin Hood politics.

No actually you were making up an argument, attributing it to me and then "bravely" shooting it down. You see, my dialectically-challenged friend, it is possible to be against social security and welfare and simultaneously against corporate welfare as well. That might be a challenge for you to comprehend but if you give it long enough, it should sink in.

I do not mention corporate welfare because (among other reasons) we were not talking about it. The subject is social security and medicare. Please try to stay on topic.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if we take a poll asking who thinks that an analogy that equates wanting to end security/medicare with doing illegal drugs or speeding - who thinks that is a "good" analogy vs who thinks it is a bad one, well you never know with LetsRun but let's just say I like my chances.

Because are you endangering people's lives by not paying taxes that contribute to helping pay for needy people's healthcare? Yes. People will die without that $.

Let's continue with the logic of your analysis. Since it's OK for these "needy" people to use the force of government to take my labor via my money, simply because they out voted me, is it OK for them to compel me to labor directly for them? Say I'm a doctor and they're sick. Is it OK for them to get a law passed that forces me to treat them for free? Since there's now a LAW it's legal, but does it make it right? What if they're hungry. Is it right for them to get a law passed that compels me to feed them? After all it's legal. What if they're a cotton farmer but they can't afford to hire the labor to pick the cotton? By your logic all they need to do is get a law passed that forces me to pick their cotton for free.

Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it.

The real problem I have with "welfare" programs like Medicare and Social Security is that they (along with all the other hand-outs our gov't provides) contribute to the welfare entitlement mentality that has become a way of life for a significant segment of our society. I have no problem handing out money to the mentally/physically disabled who cannot possibly support themselves; its the able-bodied lazy asses that make everyone so mad.

You didn't just say that you didn't think it wasn't a good law, you said it was "robbery", ie, an illegal or unconstitutional law. Good luck proving that it is so. Sure, you don't have to like the law, no one said you did, but it is not "robbery." And to equate enslaving people and not treating them as human beings to taking a very small % of each person's paycheck in order to help subsidize the elderly or poor's healthcare is, "of course, ridiculous."

1)Not giving universal healthcare to people DIRECTLY ruins lives. Ask the American Cancer Society since they DIRECTLY support universal healthcare. Maybe there should be a law against not having universal access to healthcare, since it directly "ruins lives" ?

2) Alcohol "kills people and directly ruins lives", why is it legal?

3) If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't speeding be legal ? Both are dangerous and negatively effect society in many ways.

4) To be eligible for Medicare and SS, you need to have paid into SS system for 10 years. So everyone is giving and taking (yes, the young give initially while the old receive, but the young become old and then they receive). Maybe you meant Medicaid.

poor analogy wrote: Now there is some ridiculous reasoning. I am "endangering people's lives" by not giving them my money? No, genius. By that logic, any money that anyone makes beyond what is necessary to survive should be taken away from them and given to those who don't have or those nasty rich people are "endangering their lives".

Many of those "endangered" people endangered their OWN lives by not saving money when they were young. [/quote]

1) I never said anything like that. Did I say the rich are "nasty" ? Did I say we should have a pure communist state? Play by your own rules and don't extend my logic to make an exaggeration of my argument so you can "bravely shoot it down." For example, 1.45% of your paycheck to Medicare is not close to being all the money beyond what you need to survive.

2) and yes, if people need basic healthcare, not contributing towards providing them with it if they can't afford it is endangering their lives. You may not care, and that's your perogative, but it is what it is. A lot more people would die in this country directly removing all subsidized healthcare than would die from legalizing drugs and speeding. But mostly the middle class or poor would die in the first example, so I guess that's why you don't care.

3) many do endanger their own lives by not saving enough to have healthcare or not living a healthy life. Sort of like people who take illegal drugs are endangering their own lives, huh? Maybe we should let them do it? Let's be consistent here.

4) on the other hand, many who receive subsidized healthcare get sick because of the genetic lottery, and through no fault of their own. I know your answer to that: tough luck, huh?

Corporate welfare IS on topic, but you don't know the topic well enough to understand that. As I already pointed out, Medicare Part D which Bush proudly signed into law was awash in tax breaks, subsidies, and sweetheart deals for super-rich private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. That type of information you ignore but you bash the needy and old people who are stealing from you. You should be proud of what morally outrages you and what you ignore.

The REAL real problem is handouts for farm subsidies, Israel and U.S. puppets in the Middle East, Halliburton\'s imperialist adventures. The U.S. gov\'t has spent $600B since 9-11 on the Crusades Against Islam. Just them the dumb towel heads live in their own backward world, to hell with them, pullout all troops and aid for Israel, withdrawal all the invaders back to Russia before they get nuked. Spend the money on SS, Natl Heath Insurance, bridges and roads, and Katrina victims. What the hell are we doing spending $600B on colonialism in Palestine for anyways.

How did I miss this! We colonized Palestine! How much are Palestinian plantations going for?

Golly gee? Wow! You mean it's really not robbery? Are you SERIOUS?

I wasn't trying to prove it was so, genius. I was using hyperbole, exxagerating for effect, something obvious to all but you, apparently.

Wrong. Do not confuse unwillingness to rescue people from their ruin with actually ruining them in the first place

Maybe in order to pay for it, we should only take money from those who support such a law. We can start with you.

Why should I care? It has nothing to do with argument beyond your embarassingly bad analogies.

You mean aside from the fact that speeding kills others besides the speeder?

Look, I have to applaud your persistence if nothing else in attempting to shore up your horrendous analogies, but you need to give it up already. They are ridiculous.

Because neither of them is likely to be solvent by the time I am old enough to collect and even if they are, the percentage of money people will "get back" is headed downwards.

Most importantly neither would be necessary if the majority people would actually bother to SAVE THEIR MONEY and take care of their own. Which means we are rewarding people for stupid behavior.

I merely took the logic you used to its logical end. If you can argue to me that I am "hurting" the poor by not giving them my money then it logically follows that I am hurting anyone poorer than me by not giving all my money beyond what I need to live until we all have equal incomes. That is the logical result of such thinking. Otherwise it merely becomes a matter of "how much socialism do YOU want?" and we are all at the mercy of the conscience level whoever is in office right now.

We show the extreme to highlight the absurdity of the argument itself.

No kidding? Really? You figured that out all by yourself did you? I'm arguing against the PRINCIPLE, not the amount. Can you really not grasp that after all this time?

And no, it still isn't. Because I never put their lives in danger in the first place.

I don't care about groups. I care about individuals. Specifically I care about the people close to me. I am not the keeper of poor people nor do I intend to be.

On the contrary, I am quite consistent. Personally I am AGAINST most anti-drug laws, but at least they apply to all people. People should be allowed to endanger their own lives. They are THEIR lives, not the government's.

It is when you hurt others that the law needs to step in. And no, failure to give money to others is not "hurting" them. Hurting them is stealing their possessions, injuring them, etc.

But if people want to take drugs, fine with me. Just don't make me pay for the healthcare they need when they completely destroy their health.

Yes. That is EXACTLY my answer. I didn't make them sick and I have no intention of being forced to pay for their care. Key phrase there: "being forced".

Forgive me for stating the obvious but charity is the job of charities. Where giving is a VOLUNTARY decision. I've donated to the United Way. I've donated to the American Cancer Society. But I got to choose there. Nobody tried for force me to.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Then GET RID OF THE tax breaks for corporations, of course. Did anyone say you here say they were good? Certainly not me.

It is when you assume that I somehow support them that you are attempting to make up my argument.

Of course I could pull your tactic and say, "No! Corporate welfare is THE LAW". But we both know it's bad law, now don't we? I say the corporate welfare is bad law. Just like Social Security and Medicare. Let's repeal them all.

10/10

you've already got them swinging at each other.